I got a shiny new server and I want to install the latest and greatest of
latest may not necessarily be greatest.
everything on it.
The old server has dovecot-1.2.17 working
with postfix-2.8.4,1, dovecot quotas, sieve etc.
My question is: Would it work of I installed dovecot 2 on this server a
Hi all
I got a shiny new server and I want to install the latest and greatest of
everything on it. The old server has dovecot-1.2.17 working
with postfix-2.8.4,1, dovecot quotas, sieve etc.
My question is: Would it work of I installed dovecot 2 on this server along
with everything I want and just c
hallo,
> > dovecot log entries:
> > Jun 23 23:19:10 mx dovecot: dict: Panic: file driver-pgsql.c: line 84
> > (driver_pgsql_set_state): assertion failed: (state == SQL_DB_STATE_BUSY
> > || db-
> >
> >> cur_result == NULL)
>
> This is clearly a bug, but I don't really see why it's happening. It w
On Tue, July 3, 2012 4:15 am, Pascal Volk wrote:
> Oh, forget that tread. :)
> I hope you are using Dovecot's lmtp, then set
> lmtp_save_to_detail_mailbox = yes, in your 20-lmtp.conf. Otherwise pass use
> the -m option with dovecot-lda (http://wiki2.dovecot.org/Tools/DovecotLDA)
Pascal,
thanks f
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 1:21 PM, J E Lyon
wrote:
> On 3 Jul 2012, at 13:11, Kaya Saman wrote:
>
>> It is Maildir I am using, checked permissions - they're all ok. Yeah
>> would be cur When connecting to this, do I need to put something
>> like Inbox or INBOX as the mail root folder?
>>
>> I rem
On 3 Jul 2012, at 13:20, Kaya Saman wrote:
> [...]
>>
>>
>> That's not something as simple as permissions on the server end, is it?
>
>
> I have my Maildir and parent folder permissions setup as:
>
> rwx-- mail_user:mail_user
I don't know what is strictly necessary, but I actually use rwxr
On 3 Jul 2012, at 13:11, Kaya Saman wrote:
> It is Maildir I am using, checked permissions - they're all ok. Yeah
> would be cur When connecting to this, do I need to put something
> like Inbox or INBOX as the mail root folder?
>
> I remember historically one needed to do that, however, with
[...]
>
>
> That's not something as simple as permissions on the server end, is it?
I have my Maildir and parent folder permissions setup as:
rwx-- mail_user:mail_user
This should be ok shouldn't it or would I need to use rwxrwx- ??
By default it is created as stated at top of posting.
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 1:03 PM, J E Lyon
wrote:
> On 3 Jul 2012, at 12:32, Kaya Saman wrote:
>
>> Ok now probably related to this is that some folders are not able to copy??
>>
>> While dragging one folder from Outlook PST to the Dovecot IMAP server
>> in Outlook 2010, the transfer keeps bombing o
On 3 Jul 2012, at 12:32, Kaya Saman wrote:
> Ok now probably related to this is that some folders are not able to copy??
>
> While dragging one folder from Outlook PST to the Dovecot IMAP server
> in Outlook 2010, the transfer keeps bombing out?
>
> In the logs all I see are:
>
> : Error: stat(
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 12:47 PM, Kaya Saman wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Robert Schetterer
> wrote:
>> Am 03.07.2012 13:32, schrieb Kaya Saman:
>>> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 11:51 AM, Kaya Saman wrote:
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Charles Marcus
wrote:
> On 2012-07-0
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Robert Schetterer
wrote:
> Am 03.07.2012 13:32, schrieb Kaya Saman:
>> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 11:51 AM, Kaya Saman wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Charles Marcus
>>> wrote:
On 2012-07-03 3:12 AM, Kaya Saman wrote:
>
> However this is a c
Am 03.07.2012 13:32, schrieb Kaya Saman:
> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 11:51 AM, Kaya Saman wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Charles Marcus
>> wrote:
>>> On 2012-07-03 3:12 AM, Kaya Saman wrote:
However this is a clean server with plenty of space left on the pool
allocated fo
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Robert Schetterer
wrote:
> Am 03.07.2012 13:00, schrieb Kaya Saman:
>> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 11:57 AM, J E Lyon
>> wrote:
>>> On 3 Jul 2012, at 11:51, Kaya Saman wrote:
>>>
Yeah, it seems to be M$ implementation of IMAP. I don't think that
there's anyth
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 11:51 AM, Kaya Saman wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Charles Marcus
> wrote:
>> On 2012-07-03 3:12 AM, Kaya Saman wrote:
>>>
>>> However this is a clean server with plenty of space left on the pool
>>> allocated for mail and it's additionally using ZFS too.
>>
>>
Am 03.07.2012 13:00, schrieb Kaya Saman:
> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 11:57 AM, J E Lyon
> wrote:
>> On 3 Jul 2012, at 11:51, Kaya Saman wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah, it seems to be M$ implementation of IMAP. I don't think that
>>> there's anything anyone can do Outlook seems to wait after each
>>> transmis
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 11:57 AM, J E Lyon
wrote:
> On 3 Jul 2012, at 11:51, Kaya Saman wrote:
>
>> Yeah, it seems to be M$ implementation of IMAP. I don't think that
>> there's anything anyone can do Outlook seems to wait after each
>> transmission (found using Wireshark).
>
> Is the client sy
On 3 Jul 2012, at 11:51, Kaya Saman wrote:
> Yeah, it seems to be M$ implementation of IMAP. I don't think that
> there's anything anyone can do Outlook seems to wait after each
> transmission (found using Wireshark).
Is the client syncing more than it has to? I mean, putting aside the delay
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Charles Marcus
wrote:
> On 2012-07-03 3:12 AM, Kaya Saman wrote:
>>
>> However this is a clean server with plenty of space left on the pool
>> allocated for mail and it's additionally using ZFS too.
>
>
> What OS? ZFS implementation/version? How is mail stored (ma
On 27/06/2012 10:25, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 18:35 +0100, Jase Thew wrote:
>> The reporting script at its core calls :
>>
>> doveadm -f flow mailbox status -A -t 'messages vsize' '*'
>>
>> It appears that Dovecot 2.1.7 is not resetting the vsize after collating
>> the sum total
On 2012-07-03 3:12 AM, Kaya Saman wrote:
However this is a clean server with plenty of space left on the pool
allocated for mail and it's additionally using ZFS too.
What OS? ZFS implementation/version? How is mail stored (maildir? mbox?)
While I don't think this is your problem, just fyi, my
Hello,
yesterday I set up a second director and even it works fine, some errors
occur in the logfile on the new director:
director: Error: Director 172.17.1.3:9090/left disconnected
director: Error: Director 172.17.1.3:9090/right disconnected
172.17.1.3 belongs to the first director which has
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 8:26 AM, Jahnke-Zumbusch, Dirk
wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> as I recall you are using OL2010 in an enterprise environment? In many
> cases home directories etc. are residing then on network shares. And
> that’s where .pst files and .ost files most probably are being written,
> too
Hi there,
as I recall you are using OL2010 in an enterprise environment? In many
cases home directories etc. are residing then on network shares. And
that’s where .pst files and .ost files most probably are being written,
too. When profiles are being configured writing incoming mails to .pst
files
On 3 Jul 2012, at 08:12, Kaya Saman wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 7:59 AM, J E Lyon
> wrote:
>> On 3 Jul 2012, at 07:46, Timo Sirainen wrote:
>>
>>> On 3.7.2012, at 9.38, Kaya Saman wrote:
>>>
So if I look at a different authentication mechanism say LDAP would it
improve performance
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 7:59 AM, J E Lyon
wrote:
> On 3 Jul 2012, at 07:46, Timo Sirainen wrote:
>
>> On 3.7.2012, at 9.38, Kaya Saman wrote:
>>
>>> So if I look at a different authentication mechanism say LDAP would it
>>> improve performance?
>>
>> I doubt authentication has anything to do with w
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 8:07 AM, Arne K. Haaje wrote:
> Den 03.07.2012 08:58, skrev Kaya Saman:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 7:46 AM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
>>>
>>> On 3.7.2012, at 9.38, Kaya Saman wrote:
>>>
So if I look at a different authentication mechanism say LDAP would it
improve per
Den 03.07.2012 08:58, skrev Kaya Saman:
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 7:46 AM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On 3.7.2012, at 9.38, Kaya Saman wrote:
So if I look at a different authentication mechanism say LDAP would it
improve performance?
I doubt authentication has anything to do with why Outlook downloa
On 3 Jul 2012, at 07:46, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On 3.7.2012, at 9.38, Kaya Saman wrote:
>
>> So if I look at a different authentication mechanism say LDAP would it
>> improve performance?
>
> I doubt authentication has anything to do with why Outlook downloads mails
> slowly.
>
> But you could
29 matches
Mail list logo
